e-Bulletin: Brown Act Bill May Limit Individual Meetings Between Staff and Legislative Body Members

The Ralph M. Brown Act (California Government Code Sections 54950 et seq.) (“Brown Act”) requires that meetings of local governmental legislative bodies be “open and public.”  Thus, the Brown Act currently prohibits any use of direct communication, personal intermediaries, or technological devices by a majority of a legislative body to develop a collective concurrence as to an action, such as a future vote.  (Cal. Gov. Code Section 54952.2(b)). 

The Brown Act also prohibits a “serial meeting,” which is a chain of communications, each involving less than a quorum of a legislative body, but which, when linked together, involve a majority of the legislative body members.  Last year, in Wolfe v. Fremont, 144 Cal.App.4^th 533 (2006), a California Court of Appeal held that a city manager’s meetings with individual councilmembers to discuss a particular topic, standing alone, could not be the basis for a violation of the Brown Act because such communications did not result in a collective concurrence. 

State Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero has authored a bill, Senate Bill 964 (sponsored by the California Newspapers Publishers Association), which was originally designed to overturn Wolfe, although the most recent version of the bill has been amended so as not to expressly prohibit the type of individual meetings permitted in Wolfe. 

However, in its legislative intent section, SB 964 suggests that it is intended to strike down Wolfe in its entirety: “It is the intent of the Legislature that the changes made by Section 3 of this act supersede the court’s holding [in Wolfe, n.6].” (Emphasis added).  Thus, if a series of informational briefings between a staff member and a legislative body member is challenged in court, the language in the legislative intent will make it easier for a court to construe SB 964’s language as prohibiting these types of individual meetings.

Currently, there are over 70 cities and public agencies opposing SB 964.  If you wish to send a letter to your public agency’s State Assemblymember(s) expressing your opposition to SB 964, we have drafted a sample letter of opposition for your convenience.  If you would like a copy of the letter, or assistance in obtaining the names, fax numbers and addresses of your Assemblymember(s), please contact Heather Kenny in our Irvine office at (949) 263-6581.

Best Best & Krieger attorneys will continue to monitor and report on SB 964. For more information on "open and public" meeting best practices, please contact an attorney with BB&K's Municipal & Redevelopment Law Practice Group.

 Disclaimer: BB&K eBulletins are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué. ©2007 Best Best & Krieger LLP.